It is natural, if you think something is both true and important, which Christianity (and atheism) are certainly believed to be by their adherents, in wanting others to believe it also. What constitutes "shoving it down someone's throat", I think, takes some analysis.
I don't hear people say "Don't shove your atheism down my throat." But some atheists clearly do just that.
9 comments:
I would think it would be the distinction between wanting others to believe it and thus talking about it, vs trying to force others into abiding by it. There simply are not enough atheists to force Christians to do much of anything.
This is perhaps why politics is a much more heated arena. It comes down to half the country trying to dominate the other half.
I'm sure if the New Atheists got real political power, we would see a lot of things shoved down our throats. In secular academia, atheism is predominant, and it gets pushed on people in all sorts of ways, some obvious, and some more subtle. In some circles in philosophy, and I suspect in other areas, the atheist viewpoint is treated a so obviously true as not to require argument.
Politics is the arena where we figure out what government ought to be forcing. So, for example, you can have the moral issue of abortion. Then, you have the political problem ought to deputize the government to get the morally correct result, particularly if we conclude that getting abortions (doing abortions as a medical doctor or agency) is the wrong thing to do. We can debate the morality of abortion, but what turns the heat up in the room is the claim that abortion is so wrong that it justifies the government using force to prevent it. (This is not an argument against the pro-life position, just an observation as to why the issue gets as heated as it does.)
The New Atheists (which I understand to be Dawkins, Harris, and their fellows members of the IDW) are a fairly conservative group, and I have no doubt they would push their beliefs in some fashion.
just an observation as to why the issue gets as heated as it does.)
I disagree. The issue gets as heated as it does because of the fundamental question of exactly what it is that is being aborted.
One side believes it is a human being that has as much right to life as anyone else. The other side doesn't believe the entity deserves the same right to life as anyone else.
Obviously if you believe the latter, then you will side with any decision the mother makes. If you believe the mother and child have equal rights then obviously you will take the former view.
In a democratic republic, the political decision should reside with the elected officials. The way it turned out, the judiciary has become politicized. That shouldn't happen here. In that way the pro-life side has a good argument that the decision was shoved down it's throat.
bmiller,
One side believes it is a human being that has as much right to life as anyone else. The other side doesn't believe the entity deserves the same right to life as anyone else.
On the contrary, I believe the fetus has exactly the same right to life as anyone else, but does not get additional, special rights to life. I think the mother and the fetus have equal rights, as opposed to the rights of the fetus overriding those of the mother.
However, I've had that discussion too often in here. If bmiller wants to continue to lie about it, who am I to complain?
One Brow,
It seems you have a difficult time understanding the points people are making. The SC ruled that the unborn do not have the rights of a "person" under the law and therefore, since they don't have the same rights as the mother (who is considered a "person") and so can be killed. Your peculiar claim was not part of that decision.
Calling me a liar over this just re-enforces my conclusion that you aren't capable of reasonable discussion. I expect to be called a misogynist racist now.
bmiller,
Calling me a liar over this just re-enforces my conclusion that you aren't capable of reasonable discussion.
Your assessment of what constitutes reasonable discussion does not have a great track record. Anyone who pretends the "other side" is monolithic is not being reasonable. EVery time you hear "my body, my choice", that's my position.
I expect to be called a misogynist racist now.
Haven't had a reason to yet.
Can't help it if you think when I'm disagreeing with Victor that I'm lying about you.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
Dr. Reppert does not constitute "the other side".
Post a Comment